Foreign Claimant's Security in Traffic Accident Case, Türkiye

A driver injured in a traffic accident applies to the Insurance Arbitration Commission, the dispute arbitration panel accepts the compensation claim in full, and the appeal arbitration panel rejects the insurer's objection. By the time the case reaches the Court of Cassation, however, the debate moves to a far more basic point than the disability rate or the compensation calculation: the claimant is a Syrian national, and no one examined whether security should be required from a foreigner who brings an action before a Turkish court.

In its decision of 20 May 2026, Docket No. (E.) 2025/1050, Decision No. (K.) 2026/6182, the 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation unanimously reversed the appeal arbitration panel's decision on the appeal of the defendant insurer. The reversal rests on the failure to examine the foreign claimant's obligation to provide security, reciprocity and legal aid; the insurer's other objections on appeal have not been examined for now.

🚦 The accident, the payments and the arbitration application

The accident took place on 18 January 2023. The claimant was injured and left with a disability in an accident involving the vehicle he was driving and a vehicle insured by the defendant insurer under a compulsory traffic liability insurance (ZMSS) policy. Finding the payment made by the insurer insufficient, the claimant brought an action of indeterminate claim and put forward the following claims:

• TL 240,000.00 compensation for permanent loss of working capacity (later increased to TL 356,072.00),
• TL 1,500.00 report fee,
• advance interest from the date of default.

The insurer stated that it had paid the claimant TL 84,907.25 on 5 May 2023 and TL 301,324.00 on 1 December 2023, and that no balance remained. The insurer's other defences are also set out in detail in the decision: that the application was not made with a report complying with the regulation in force on the date of the accident, that liability is limited to the policy limit and to the insured driver's share of fault, that the payment made should be updated and deducted from the calculation, that the calculation should use the TRH-2010 life table and a technical interest rate of 1.8%, and that the forensic medicine fee cannot be claimed from the insurer.

⚖️ Decisions of the arbitration panels

The dispute arbitration panel accepted the claim, ordered the defendant to pay TL 356,072.00 for permanent loss of working capacity with statutory interest running from 6 March 2024, and also treated the TL 1,500.00 report fee as part of the litigation costs. The insurer's objection was rejected by the appeal arbitration panel.

In its appeal petition the insurer argued that the disability rate had been set excessively, that the report did not comply with the regulation, that TL 386,231.00 had been paid on the basis of a 5 per cent disability rate, that income must be proven with concrete evidence, and that the fault rate was incorrect. The Chamber did not address any of these objections, because it identified in the case a procedural prerequisite problem that had to be resolved first.

🌍 The core of the reversal: security from foreigners

Having established from the documents in the case that the claimant is a national of the Syrian Arab Republic, the Chamber built its assessment on the following steps:

1. The rule is security: Under Article 48/1 of MÖHUK, foreign natural and legal persons who bring an action before a Turkish court must provide the security set by the court to cover the litigation and enforcement costs and the other party's damages and losses. The law takes "foreignness" as its criterion and provides for reciprocity as an exception.
2. Security is a procedural prerequisite: Under Article 114/1-ğ of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK), complying with the decision on providing security is a curable procedural prerequisite and is examined ex officio at every stage.
3. Legal aid exempts from security: Under Article 335/1-b of the HMK, legal aid also covers exemption from providing security for litigation and enforcement costs. However, under Article 334/3 of the HMK, foreigners' access to legal aid is itself subject to a reciprocity requirement.
4. There is no reciprocity with Syria: The Agreement on Legal Assistance in Civil and Commercial Matters, signed between the two countries on 9 April 2009, approved by Law No. 6040 and in force since 15 June 2011, has been suspended in its application from Türkiye's side because of developments since 2011. Syria is also not a party to the 1954 Hague Convention on Civil Procedure.
5. The Geneva Convention does not apply: Türkiye ratified the 1951 Geneva Convention with a geographical limitation; a claimant coming from outside Europe has no refugee status.

The Chamber also addressed the temporary protection regime. Article 91 of Law No. 6458 and the Temporary Protection Regulation contain no provision exempting those under temporary protection from security or from the reciprocity requirement. Under Article 7/3 of the Regulation, persons under temporary protection are not regarded as having directly obtained one of the international protection statuses.

The Chamber also did not overlook the drawback of applying the rule categorically. Referring to the decision of the General Assembly of the Constitutional Court of 17 May 2023, application No. 2019/26339, it recalled that applying the reciprocity requirement without regard to a person's ability to pay could remove the possibility for foreigners without income to bring compensation claims before the courts and could raise a problem for the right of access to a court. On the link between legal aid and access to a court, see also our article on refusal of legal aid in enforcement proceedingsTR.

🧭 Three separate routes depending on status

The reversal sets out a sequence that the appeal arbitration panel is to follow. It accepts as established that the claimant does not have refugee status and leaves three possibilities:

A notable aspect of the decision is that the security issue was taken up for the first time on appeal, even though the defendant insurer had not raised it in its appeal petition. The Chamber based this on the principle that procedural prerequisites are examined ex officio at every stage.

📘 Relevant provisions

• MÖHUK Art. 48: (1) Foreign natural and legal persons who bring an action before a Turkish court, join a case or pursue enforcement proceedings must provide security. (2) The court exempts a person from security on the basis of reciprocity.
• HMK Arts. 114/1-ğ and 115: Complying with the decision on providing security is a procedural prerequisite; for a curable deficiency a peremptory time limit is given, and if it is not remedied within that time the case is dismissed on procedural grounds.
• HMK Art. 334/3: Foreigners' access to legal aid is also subject to a reciprocity requirement.
• HMK Art. 335/1-b: A legal aid decision provides exemption from providing security for litigation and enforcement costs.
• Law No. 6458 Art. 88/1: Holders of international protection status are exempt from the reciprocity requirement.
• Law No. 6458 Art. 91: Temporary protection may be provided to foreigners who have been forced to leave their country, cannot return, and arrive at Türkiye's borders in mass numbers; rights and obligations are regulated by regulation. According to the Chamber, these provisions contain no exemption from security.

🔍 What the decision means in practice

Insurance arbitration is a frequently used route in traffic accident compensation disputes. With this decision the Chamber has made clear that arbitration panels, too, must examine the questions of security and reciprocity ex officio where the applicant is a foreigner. Discussions on the amount of compensation cannot be concluded before this examination is completed.

Although the decision does not grant an automatic exemption to persons under temporary protection, it brings forward the legal aid examination as a mandatory intermediate step. In this way, security does not turn into an obstacle to access to a court without regard to a person's real ability to pay. For another procedural issue in compulsory traffic insurance disputes, our article on the application requirement under Article 97 of the Highway Traffic Law (KTK)TR can also be read.

❓ Frequently asked questions

For detailed information and legal support, you can contact Savun Law & Consultancy. Contact details are on the contact page, and other decisions are in the Precedent DecisionsTR archive.